I agree it's not too bad if you have a fat pipe to S3, but it's a pretty
bad regression in usability to make it the default and particularly provide
no way to opt out.
The toolchain is almost 1GB though, which is pretty problematic to download
if a developer is on coffee-shop wifi, cellular wireless, airplane wifi,
etc. It'd also be pretty easy for a developer working offline to switch
branches, run buildall.sh, have gcc, etc, automatically deleted and then be
stuck unable to build anything.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'd prefer not to do that because it's something of a hack and generates
> too many artifacts if we make incremental build changes, not to mention the
> extra complexity required to make such a change because new tarballs might
> need to be uploaded.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 8:55 AM Lars Volker <l...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > Can we add another version string component like -1 or -impala1, or add a
> > dummy patch to the affected packages to allow for new versions with the
> > same upstream version? I think this is what Linux distributions commonly
> do
> > to have several versions of the same upstream version.
> >
> > On Feb 27, 2017 21:15, "Henry Robinson" <he...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it would force re-downloading. At my office, downloading a toolchain
> > takes a matter of a few seconds, so I'm not sure the cost is that great.
> > And if it turned out to be problematic, one could always change the
> > toolchain directory for different branches. Having something locally that
> > set IMPALA_TOOLCHAIN_DIR=${IMPALA_HOME}/${IMPALA_TOOLCHAIN_BUILD_ID}/
> would
> > work.
> >
> > However I wouldn't want to force behaviour that into the toolchain
> scripts
> > because of the need for garbage collection it would raise - it wouldn't
> be
> > clear when to delete old toolchains programatically.
> >
> > On 27 February 2017 at 20:51, Tim Armstrong <tarmstr...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but wouldn't that force re-downloading of
> the
> > > entire toolchain every time a developer switches between branches with
> > > different build IDs?
> > >
> > > I know some developers do that frequently, e.g. to try and reproduce
> bugs
> > > on older versions or backport patches.
> > >
> > > I agree it would be good to fix this, since I've run into this problem
> > > before, I'm just not quite sure what the best solution is. In the other
> > > case where I had this issue with LLVM I changed the version number (by
> > > appending noasserts-) to it, but that's really just a hack.
> > >
> > > -Tim
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > As Matt said, I have a patch that implements build ID-based
> versioning
> > at
> > > > https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/6166/2.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone want to take a look? If we could get this in soon it
> would
> > > help
> > > > smooth over the LZ4 change which is going in shortly.
> > > >
> > > > On 27 February 2017 at 14:21, Henry Robinson <he...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I agree that that might be useful, and that it's a separately
> > > addressable
> > > > > problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 27 February 2017 at 14:18, Matthew Jacobs <m...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Just catching up to this e-mail, though I had seen your code
> reviews
> > > > >> and I think this approach makes sense. An additional concern would
> > be
> > > > >> how to identify how a toolchain package was built, and AFAIK this
> is
> > > > >> tricky now if only the 'toolchain ID' is known. Before I saw this
> > > > >> e-mail I was thinking about this problem (which I think we can
> > address
> > > > >> separately), and that we might want to write the native-toolchain
> > git
> > > > >> hash with every toolchain build so that the exact build scripts
> are
> > > > >> associated with those build artifacts. I filed
> > > > >> https://issues.cloudera.org/browse/IMPALA-5002 for this related
> > > > >> problem.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Henry Robinson <
> he...@apache.org>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > As written, the toolchain can't apparently deal with the
> > possibility
> > > > of
> > > > >> > build flags changing, but a dependency version remaining the
> same.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > LZ4 has never (afaict) been built with optimization enabled. I
> > have
> > > a
> > > > >> > commit that enables -O3, but that continues to produce artifacts
> > for
> > > > >> > lz4-1.7.5 with no version change. This is a problem because
> > > > >> bootstrapping
> > > > >> > the toolchain will fail to pick up the new binaries - because
> the
> > > > >> > previously downloaded version is still in the local cache, and
> > won't
> > > > be
> > > > >> > overwritten because of the version change.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I think the simplest way to fix this is to write the toolchain
> > build
> > > > ID
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > the dependency version file (that's in the local cache only)
> when
> > > it's
> > > > >> > downloaded. If that ID changes, the dependency will be
> > > re-downloaded.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > This has the disadvantage that any bump in
> > IMPALA_TOOLCHAIN_BUILD_ID
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> > invalidate all dependencies, and bin/bootstrap_toolchain.py will
> > > > >> > re-download all of them. My feeling is that that cost is better
> > than
> > > > >> trying
> > > > >> > to individually determine whether a dependency has changed
> between
> > > > >> > toolchain builds.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Any thoughts on whether this is the right way to go?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Henry
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Henry Robinson
> > > > > Software Engineer
> > > > > Cloudera
> > > > > 415-994-6679 <(415)%20994-6679>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Henry Robinson
> > > > Software Engineer
> > > > Cloudera
> > > > 415-994-6679 <(415)%20994-6679>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Henry Robinson
> > Software Engineer
> > Cloudera
> > 415-994-6679 <(415)%20994-6679> <(415)%20994-6679>
> >
>
